<div dir="ltr">My BIP was ultimately accepted, it's number 74<div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki" target="_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0074.mediawiki</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The editor did not agree with it, and I suspect would comment against it with his new proposed BIP :)</div><div><br></div><div>I really appreciated that despite his vehement disagreement, he assigned the BIP. It seems like the process worked great. There was deep vetting, lots of back and forth and the editor put aside his personal opinions to accept the BIP.</div><div><br></div><div>That being said...</div><div><br></div><div>The mailing list is a problem. I'm still on moderation only. I have no idea if this message will go through and when it will go through. I totally understand the desire to keep the conversation level high, but when people who *are* whitelisted can quickly post multiple heated arguments against you (publicly) and you can't respond, then that starts to look very centralized and discouraging.</div><div><br></div><div>I would agree with Gavin on the other thread about the proposed BIP commenting BIP. Putting more decision power behind a moderated mailing list and wiki doesn't seem like a good idea.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pieter Wuille <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target="_blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><p dir="ltr">On Feb 2, 2016 18:04, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:44:48AM -0800, Toby Padilla via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> > I really don't like the idea of policing other people's use of the<br>
> > protocol. If a transaction pays its fee and has a greater than dust value,<br>
> > it makes no sense to object to it.<br>
><br>
> I'll point out that getting a BIP for a feature is *not* a hard<br>
> requirement for deployment. I'd encourage you to go write up your BIP<br>
> document, give it a non-numerical name for ease of reference, and lobby<br>
> wallet vendors to implement it.<br>
><br>
> While I'll refrain from commenting on whether or not I think the feature<br>
> itself is a good idea, I really don't want people to get the impression<br>
> that we're gatekeepers for how people choose use Bitcoin.</p>
</span><p dir="ltr">I'll go further: whatever people have commented here and elsewhere about this feature (myself included) are personal opinions on the feature itself, in the hope you take the concerns into account.</p>
<p dir="ltr">These comments are not a judgement on whether this should be accepted as a BIP. Specifically, the BIP editor should accept a BIP even if he personally dislikes the ideas in it, when the criteria are satisfied.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Beyond that, having a BIP accepted does not mean wallets have to implement it. That's up to the individual wallet authors/maintainers.</p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>